1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT NAGPUR, NAGPUR.
FIRST APPEAL NO. 1549 /2008
Smt. Sarita Gopalkumar Chand
Aged about 40 years,
occu: Household,
R/o Bhutda Chambers
Grain market, Itwari, Nagpur. ... ...APPELLANT
v e r s u s
1)
Madgu s/o Sitaram Ramteke
Aged about 53 years
occu: Business
2) Gopichand s/o Sitaram Ramteke
Aged about 50 years
occu: Business
3) Bhimrao s/o Sitaram Ramteke
Aged about 43 years
All R/o Jagjivan Nagar,
Behind Popular Com.Plot No.253,
Ambedkar Chowk, Garoba Maidan
Nagpur. . ... ...RESPONDENTS
...........................................................................................................................
Mr. A Shelat, Advocate for appellant
Mr. S.V.Sirpurkar, Adv. for Respondents
...........................................................................................................................
CORAM: A.P.BHANGALE, J.
DATED : 13th July, 2010
JUDGMENT :
::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 16:08:38 :::
2
1. This Appeal at the instance of original plaintiff is
directed against the judgment and order dated 25.9.2008 passed by
learned 2nd Joint Civil Judge S.D., Nagpur in Special Civil Suit No. 575 /
2006 whereby the suit for ejectment and vacant possession filed by
her, was dismissed.
2. Facts briefly are : Suit plot No.253 in CRS III Scheme
NIT Middle Precinct, Ward No.24, District Nagpur, admeasuring
1500 sq.ft. was allotted on renewable leasehold rights to Tulsabai
Mahagu Khobragade and Dattatraya Mahagu Khobgrade, on
24.5.1996 by Nagpur Improvement Trust. Mahagu expired on
13.3.1975 leaving his legal heirs – wife Tulsabai and son Dattatraya.
Tulsabai expired on 12.7.1998 leaving behind her sole heir Dattatraya
Mahagu Khobragade to inherit all the rights in suit property. The
plaintiff purchased the suit property for a sum of Rs.2,75,000/- on
17.9.1998 after Dattatraya obtained consent from Nagpur
Improvement Trust ( in short ” NIT”) for transfer in favour of the
plaintiff.
3. During life time of Mahagu, he had permitted Sitaram
Khobragade to use and occupy temporary structure 3000 st.ft.
without any occupation charges. In 1997, Regular Civil Suit No. 902 /
1997 was filed by Mahagu and two others vs. Dattatraya and two
::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 16:08:38 :::
3
others which was dismissed with cost. The dismissal was challenged
in Regular Civil Appeal No. 482 of 1998 which is pending before the
District Court, Nagpur. Said Sitaram Khobragade or his legal heirs
i.e. defendants have no right/share in suit property. They failed to
vacate despite notice served on 22.4.2006. According to defendants,
sale deed in favour of the plaintiff is void as hit by doctrine of ‘lis
pendense’. The trial Court found favour with the defendant and
recorded finding that the sale deed in favour of the plaintiff was hit by
doctrine of ‘lis pendense’ while disbelieving the plaintiff’s case,
dismissed the suit.
4. Learned Advocate for appellant submitted that as on the
date of Special Civil Suit No. 575/2006 filed in the Court of Civil Judge,
Senior Division, Nagpur, RCS No. 902/1997 as well as appeal being
RCA No. 482 /1998 therefrom were not pending. RCS No. 902/
1997 was dismissed and RCA No. 482/1998 was also dismissed. The
claim of adverse possession set up by the respondent was negatived
and, therefore, there was no impediment for transfer in favour of the
plaintiff-appellant as no lis was pending. Therefore, trial Court ought to
have decreed the Special Civil Suit No. 575/2006. Learned Advocate
further submitted the trial Court ought to have understood the legal
effect of the transfer pendente lite, that it would be subject to decree in
::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 16:08:38 :::
4
pending legal proceedings and, as such, as on 25.9.2008 when
Special Civil Suit No. No. 575 of 2006 was decided nothing was
pending as RCS No. 902/ 1997 and RCA No. 482/1998 preferred
therefrom, were also dismissed.
5. According to learned Advocate for respondents-seller
Mahagu’s wife had instituted Special Civil Suit No.343/ 2009 to set
aside the sale. He, therefore, prayed for dismissal of appeal.
6.
Learned counsel for the plaintiff in-reply, submitted that
subsequently instituted suit may be as a result of collusion between
present occupier and legal representative of ex-lease holder. He made a
reference to Amit Kumar Shaw & another vs. Farida Khatoon:
( 2005 ) 11 SCC 403, to argue that the Apex Court has explained
the nature, scope and applicability of the doctrine of lis pendense. The
requirements are :
(i) There must be suit or proceeding pending
in a court of competent jurisdiction;
(ii) The suit must not be collusive;
(iii) The litigation must be one in which right to
immovable property is directly and specifically in
question;
(iv) Transfer of suit property by a party to a
suit;
::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 16:08:38 :::
5
(vi) Such transfer must affect the rights of
other party that may ultimately accrue under decree.
6. Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 embodies
a doctrine that any transfer of the suit property pending the hearing and
disposal of the suit would be subject to the decree/judgment that may
be passed in the suit. Thus, any suit property while suit (not a
collusive suit ) is pending in a Court of law cannot be transferred unless
the court concerned has permitted the transfer pendente lite. The Court
while granting permission may authorize transfer pending the suit upon
such terms as it may deem just.
7. Looking into submissions at the Bar and legal position, I
think that submissions on behalf of the plaintiff/appellant are
convincing as she claimed title under a registered sale deed ( which
was though subject to decree in pending suit ) cannot be considered as
altogether void. Rights of the transferee would depend upon result of
pending legal proceedings /or suit in respect of the suit property. In the
present case when Special Civil Suit No.575 /2006 was decided by the
trial Court, no legal proceedings in respect of the suit property was
pending. The trial Court also failed to notice that the claim of adverse
possession in a pending proceeding on the date of the institution of the
::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 16:08:38 :::
6
suit was based upon permissive possession which can never be termed
as adverse possession. Even otherwise, the effect of lis pendense is not to
annul the conveyance but only to make it subservient to rights of the
parties to litigation. The evidence of the plaintiff and her witnesses in
the trial Court went unchallenged as the suit had proceeded further ex-
parte against the defendants. Under these circumstanaces, possession
ought to have followed the title which vested in the plaintiff under the
registered sale deed dated 17.8.1998 and her name was also entered in
the record of NIT Nagpur as owner of suit plot pursuant thereto. The
trial Court, therefore, was in error in not passing decree in favour of
the plaintiff. In the result, therefore, the plaintiff has satisfactorily proved
her title to the suit plot and is entitled to recovery of possession thereof
from the respondents. Hence the Appeal is allowed. The impugned
judgment and order dated 25.9.2008 passed in Special Civil Suit No.
575 /2006 by the learned 2nd Jt. Civil Judge S.D. Nagpur is set aside.
There shall be inquiry into mesne profits from the date of the suit till
the plaintiff recovers actual physical possession of the suit plot.
JUDGE
sahare
::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 16:08:38 :::